ms dates - Sinaiticus (350 AD) has homoeoteleuton from copying Claromontanus (550 AD)

[Steven Avery]

homoeoteleuton textbook case
Sinaiticus (350 AD?) copied from Claromontanus (550 AD)
Time machine? Or are our history and dates needing correction.

You can actually how this omission, followed by the correction, occurred with the Claromontanus and Sinaiticus ms. pics here:

Homeoteleuton - Text Omitted Because Of Similar Endings
www.sinaiticus.net/homeoteleuton.html

And then there are links to 3 papers with more info, that can be read online, or downloaded.

Your analysis, thoughts and feedback appreciated.

Steven

 

[daqq]

homoeoteleuton textbook case
Sinaiticus (350 AD?) copied from Claromontanus (550 AD)
Time machine? Or are our history and dates needing correction.

You can actually how this omission, followed by the correction, occurred with the Claromontanus and Sinaiticus ms. pics here:

Homeoteleuton - Text Omitted Because Of Similar Endings
www.sinaiticus.net/homeoteleuton.html

And then there are links to 3 papers with more info, that can be read online, or downloaded.

Your analysis, thoughts and feedback appreciated.

Steven

Generally bias explains motive so I would first ask; what is your bias? It seems you are likely biased toward the TR and Byzantine text traditions. The problem with "homeoteleuton" is that it can be used by unscrupulous well-paid scribes in a reverse manner, so as to make an addition into a text at the end of a pericope; and ending his additional words with the same or similar words from the end of the original passage, (reverse homeoteleuton), the older text would then look as if it had suffered from homeoteleuton, (and at the same time the unscrupulous scribe covers his own tracks). Not saying your efforts are not worthwhile but as far as dating manuscripts I would say that what you have shown has no impact on dating. I could give an example of the same process right here in English but seeing what you have posted you already know what I am saying: the problem with "homeoteleuton" is that it can be used by unscrupulous well-paid scribes in a reverse manner.

 

[RBBI]

Which is the reason why we can only truly trust the Scribe who writes it upon our hearts. Peace

 

[Steven Avery]

The problem with "homeoteleuton" is that it can be used by unscrupulous well-paid scribes in a reverse manner, so as to make an addition into a text at the end of a pericope; and ending his additional words with the same or similar words from the end of the original passage, (reverse homeoteleuton), the older text would then look as if it had suffered from homeoteleuton, (and at the same time the unscrupulous scribe covers his own tracks).

Have you actually looked at the two manuscripts in this section? It is on the sinaiticus.net page and also the first two papers linked to on that page.

My sense is that you are writing blind.

Steven